216 Transactions. 



Art. XXIV. — The Sjjecies of the Genus Pinus now growing in New Zealand, 

 with some Notes on their Introduction and Growth. 



By T. W. Adams. 



[Read before the Philosophical Institute of Canterbury, 7th August, 1907.*] 



No genus of trees is more easily recognized than Pinus, but it is not so 

 easy to identify the species, especially in the case of trees without cones. 

 Here, for convenience, the species are divided into the following classes : 

 (1) Those with two leaves in a sheath ; (2) those with three leaves in a 

 sheath ; (3) those with five leaves in a sheath. The above characters are 

 fairly uniform in the different species, and are of considerable service for 

 purposes of identification. 



(1.) Trees usually with Two Leaves in a Sheath. 

 Pinus austriaca Link. 



This was probably first introduced in 1866. Potts, in the " New Zealand 

 Country Journal," vol. 3, p. 38, reports a plant 6 in. high growing at 

 Governor's Bay in that year, and in a paper read before the Wellington 

 Philosophical Institute on the 22nd July, 1871, he states that a tree growing 

 in Wellington had reached the height of 8 ft. 9 in. A tree of this species 

 planted at Greendale in 1877 is now 43 ft. high. Mr. Potts reports on 

 P. austriaca as one of the best to withstand salt breezes when planted by 

 the sea. It is also a good drought-resister. 



Pinus Banksiana Lambert. 



This is a distinct and hardy pine. Plants at Greendale raised from 

 seed in 1904 are 11 ft. high, and produce cones. 



Pinus bruttia Tenore. 



By some botanists this is considered to be only a geographical form of 

 P. halepensis, but trees here 12 ft. high, while showing a relationship to 

 that species, are distinct in habit, and the cones are distinctly different. 



Pinus contorta Dougl. 



This was introduced about 1880 in three forms, and two of these are so 

 distinct that I prefer to follow those botanists who separate them into the 

 two species P. contorta and P. Mnrrayana. 



Lemmon, in " West American Cone-bearers," says of P. Murrayana, 

 " Until recently confounded with P. contorta, but clearly distinct." G. B. 

 Sudworth, United States Government Dendrologist, however, in a quite 

 recent letter to me puts his ^dew of the matter thus : " The stable botanical 

 characteristics of the different forms of this tree, as now constituted under 

 Pinus contorta, do not differ sufficiently, in my judgment, to justify a 

 separation into distinct species, notwithstanding the fact that the crown- 

 habit and even the size of the cones of individual trees appear to indicate 



« 



* Since the paper was read in 1907 it has been brought up to date by the inclusion 

 of later measurenaents, &c. 



